archbishop lazarus

I think we should begin with fences and bushes. In A2, they usually stopped the tank. Yes, then the tank goes over them, but a fence stopping a tank??!! Pathetic. :mad: I easily crushed smaller trees with a real T-55 at idle rpm in 2nd gear, I didnt feel even a bump. I did it several times. The tank wenth through them like hot knife through butter. Although tanks are quite capable of running over trees (and house walls), and there are benefits for going into a forest, for example it can be a great concealment, its not recommended to do it in general. It can damage certain parts of the tank, especially the fenders, and everything on them. EDIT: watch from 0:48

In contrary to the myths surrounding the T-34, in the last years of the war it was little more than practice target for the Germans. The IS-2 was the true war-winner tank. Without it, the red army would have been still won, but months, if not years later. This isnt entirely true. The T-34 was an extremely primitive and crude tank, while the T-54/55 was a quite good quality and advanced vehicle in the '50s, (which western tank had stabilized gun that time?) although it was still more simple than the western tanks, and its design philosophy was similar to the T-34. The T-64 was the turning point. It was a top quality tank, the best in the world in the '60s, '70s. Its design philosophy was similar to the WW2 German, quality over quantity. It was so expensive that the soviets had to develop a much more simple tank for their 2nd line divisions, it became the T-72. The elite guards divisions were almost exclusively equipped with T-64 and T-80. Using autoloader has nothing to do with reducing the number of the crew, its a different story.

This thread is getting better and better! :) Really! When Im in bad mood, or I just want to laugh a bit, the first thing I usually do is check this thread if there are new posts by Ollie1983. The most funny is that this guy actually takes everything he writes seriously. :D

Really? Of course Kontakt-5 is obsolete now, the M829A2 and A3 can defeat it easily. Russia had the Chobham equivalent even in the '60s. You heard of the "composite K" armor? The T-64 in 1962 had the same protection level as the M1. (1980-84 variant) In fact the M1A1 is less armored than even the T-55AM and T-62M tanks. The M1A1HA was the first drastic improvement, but its protection was still inferior to the late T-72B and the T-80U. Try to read russian sources too!

One year doesnt matter :). Since Kontakt-1 is useless against KE penetrators, it doesnt matter if the T-72B has K1 or not. Its superior to M1A1 either way. They had K1 in 1985, although the first few machines were built without ERA, they entered service in the end of 1984. T-72B has significantly better turret armor than T-72A. The two has completely different armor structure. If you want, I can describe it in detail. T-72A turret is around 380-410mm KE and 490-500mm CE, the same as the Czechslovak built T-72M1. My point is that we shouldnt compare tanks that arent in the same period. If we want to compare the M1A2 SEP, we should compare it to the T-90, not the T-72.

The problem is that everyone is trying to compare the old T-72M and M1 tanks to the latest M1A2 SEP Abrams. Its like if I would compare the T-80U and the M-48A3. And it looks like lots of people forgot that there was the collapse of the soviet union! But if we compare the M1A1 from 1985 and the T-72B, also from 1985, we can see interesting things: T-72B is 44.5 tons, turret front is 540mm KE, 900mm CE (Kontakt-1) Hull front is 490mm KE, 900mm CE (K1) M1A1 Abrams is 57 tons, turret front is 450mm KE and 800-1000mm CE Hull front is 400-450mm CE and 500-800mm CE The T-72B has very similar CE protection, but its turret front is much stronger! This is not primarily due to the internal volume, but due to entirely different design philosophy. I absolutely recomment the book "Боевые машины уралвагонзавода. Танк Т-72"

Guys! Its pointless to argue with Ollie1983. He thinks this way, we cant convince him. His reality is rather twisted, infected with some cold war western propaganda, or maybe he is just that ignorant. 2 Boota: Its quite interesting that the Metis-M can be fired from the shoulder too! Maybe this can be the russian equivalent of the Javelin, both are relatively short ranged, and quite light.

Long rod penetrator is always better than short rod. Why? Long rod have more mass, and when it strikes the target, it generates much more pressure on the same spot than the short rod. Oh nooo... again... You have no idea what the chechen rebels (terrorists) did to russian T-80BV tanks in Grozniy with those "crude" weapons. Ah yeah... I forgot... T-80 is also a crude shit... Particularly because it has autoloader and the americans have better logistics! :p This is pathetic... The fact that arabs cant shoot and aim doesnt mean that the RPG is just a "nuisance". A trained soldier can destroy any tank in the world with a PG-7VR with one shot! And obviously you know only RPG-7. RPG-29 is nonexistent for you. Blah, blah... Not even the same category! You heard of Metis-M for example? Obviously not.

Not anymore. More and more of their experts and politicians realize that the 125mm gun isnt enough anymore. The latest russian 125mm APFSDS rounds can penetrate only the M1A1HA. The M1A2's hull can be penetrated too, but the turret front is invulnerable. Missiles are useless. It doesnt matter that they can penetrate 900-1000mm RHA, because all western tanks have 1350-2000mm CE RHA armor. This is why they installed a huge 152mm 2A83 gun in their Objekt-195. They wanted superiority that last for decades, and I think they did the right thing. In my opinion, there wont be any western tank in the following 20-30 years that could resist this huge gun. There is one: M829A3. It should have no problem penetrating any T-90 variant's armor. The only russian tanks that could resist this are the Objekt-640 Черный орел (Chorniy oryol), and the Objekt-195.

I work with Mandoble on a SAM system. The launchers have no crew, so they are building class objects. They are controlled by scripts. The problem is that the 3d model has too much vertices, so the engine cant load it. I tried to move a few parts to a proxy, but ingame I didnt see these parts of the model. Anyway, are linked animations possible on building class objects? For example, the hydraulics of the launcher should move when the launch rails elevate. This works perfectly on vehicle class object, but Im afraid they dont work on buildings.

I got a problem. It looks like A2 engine cant display proxies on building class objects. For example, if I have a vehicle that has too many vertices so the engine cant render it, I simply move certain parts of the model to a proxy in O2. This works perfectly. But on building class, it doesnt work. Do I have to enable the proxy in cfg, or its simply impossible?

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I was too tired yesterday...:) Germany did an another test on the T-72M1. They tested the tank against 105mm DM12 HEAT, (400mm penetration) 105mm DM33 APFSDS (wolfram-carbid version of M833, 380mm penetration) and 120mm DM53. I think everyone know the results of the 120mm, but the 105mm rounds are interesting. The front turret and hull were invulnerable to DM12 HEAT. The DM33 APFSDS could penetrate only up to 1500m. I also doubt that they did the test on T-72B. In my opinion, they bought only the Kontakt-5 blocks, and somehow fitted them on the T-72M1. Anyway, the result was that the US developed the M829A2 which could penetrate the K5 equipped tanks. Russia's answer was the Relikt, but I dont think that it could save the T-90 against the M829A3 and DM63.

To make things clear, Iraq used the following versions: T-72, T-72M, T-72M1, Asad Babil. They used the T-72 in very limited numbers, these were built in the soviet union. Most of the T-72M and M1 tanks came from Poland. For unknown reason, polish export tanks are significantly worse quality than soviet and czechslovak ones. (in fact, domestic tanks are also worse, but not that much) This included flawed armor quality, incompatible parts to the other versions, more crude workmanship, and even reliability problems. Iraq used the 3VBM-3 rounds with 3BM-9 projectile (maraging steel penetrator). In the soviet union, it was only a training round. It cant penetrate even the M-60's front turret (although it penetrates the front hull easily) Asad Babil tanks were more or less unified, similar to T-72M, their quality was also bad. The worst problem was the absolute lack of training. They didnt even knew what rounds are they firing! They used their tanks as SP artillery with APFSDS(!!!) against infantry. On some occasions, they just turned the turrets towards the enemy, and fired the gun without aiming. The link Nkenny gave us explains the problems in arab countries in great detail: http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars 2 boota: We dont have T-72B in vanilla game. The one ingame is probably a T-72M1 version. The T-72B's turret armor is around 540mm KE and 900mm CE, the late version (incorrectly: BM) 740mm KE and 1120mm CE. Although this still means that the T-72B is no match for an M1A2. I also agree, no need balance. We need an armor simulation system, even if its so simple as in Blitzkrieg/The day after.

This reply clearly proves that you are an US fanboi. You speak, but know nothing. absolutely nothing. just typical western propaganda. One last question to you: What do you tink about the M48? Because it had absolutely no chance against the israeli Shermans and AMX-13s in 1967. No. Dont answer it. I already guessed it. You would say that that the arabs frightened of the israelis and blew up their tanks themselves, even that the M48 was the worlds best that time. But if the M48s were T-XX, you would say that how bad those soviet coffins were.

I completely agree with Dark Yell. You dont answer any questions. Just talk BS, BS and even more BS. You dont know anything about the equipment of WP. You think that the miserable performance of all soviet/eastern equipment in arab-israeli wars and iraq are real qualification of these, while forget the fact that the arabs didnt receive any valuable training. What do you think mr. professor, what guidance method the most recent Tor, Tunguska or Pantsir variants use? And yes, this "pathetic" system downed your "invicible" F-117. The NATO fired dozens of HARM missiles at the battery, and none hit! And besides the F-117, this battery downed an F-16 too. This is the result of proper training. Lets end this offtopic BS.

Yes, I know its offtopic, but I have to correct this. They didnt know where the F-117 was, they detected it using a P-18 radar. They knew only that the F-117 fligh is probably headed to that area. Anyway, you cant "separate the target from radar noise". You see the target on the indicators or not. its so simple. Try this simulator, you can actually shoot down the F-117 in it. (very hard to do) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

The S-125 Neva especially liked low flying targets!, And if you fly low, you'll certainly meet the dreaded Shilka! Plus the Strela-1/3/10, the Igla, and of course the ZU-23-2, the ZPU-1/2/4 AA guns. Concerning stealth technology: Do you remember the F-117 downing in 1999? (Also by a S-125 Neva) It wasnt luck! The old soviet radar systems, like the P-18 or P-12 operating in the VHF band have no difficulty detecting it. And BTW, the S-200VE Vega had 250km range...

Not only the airforce, there was the WP SAM belt! Hundeds of SAM sites, overlapping each other's destruction zone. Even the E-3 arircafts werent safe because the S-200 Vega. And there were the air defence of the troops, with mobile systems, like the 2K11 Krug, the 2K12 Kub, the 9K33 Osa, the ZSU-23-4 Shilka the Strela-1/3/10 and the Igla, also hundreds if not thousands of them. And Ollie1983, I strongly recommend you this: http://www.saper.etel.ru/index-texnica.html

This is absolutely BS. The WP had more than enough supply trucks, there were hundreds of thousands of them. This again proves that you know nothing about the wp logistics. PMP, GSP, PTS, (ПМП, ГСП, ПТС) do you know what are these? And anyway...The M1 proved nothing. Except to fight against untrained fanatical zealots. And that it requires thousands of liters of fuel to operate for a single day.

Then the koreans and french are idiots, and their K2 Black Panther and Leclerc are exactly as bad as the T-XX. :eek::eek::eek: OMG! Is it serious???? You have no idea about the soviet and WP logistic support. This is BS, because the earlier. Anyway, american tanks never were the best. In the '50s, T-54 and the Centurion were better than an M-48. In the '60s, the M60 was roughly equal to T-55 and T-62. In the '70s-early '80s, the T-64 was absolutely the best tank in the world, far superior to anything, maybe except the Chieftain. The T-80B, BV, U were also superior to the Abrams, until the A2 variant. Soviet tanks were much more simple to maintain, more reliable, and more durable. And I really doubt that the M1A2 is better than a Merkava IV, a K2, or a Challenger 2.

Then it looks like France is east... :D The new K2 Black Panther also uses autoloader.

The gun elevation is the part of the cycle time! When the gunner presses the loading button, the carousel immediately begins to rotate. Its very fast on the T-64/80 loaders. While the carousel is still rotating, the gun are already on the loading angle and hydrolocked. Then the loader loads the projectile and the charge at the same time (on T-64/80, separate on T-72/90, this is one of the reasons why its slower), and then the mechanism unlocks the gun and returns on target. Cycle time is 6-13 secs, but its around 6 secs when "sequence mode" is on. In this mode, after you fired the gun, the carousel immediately begins to rotate to a same type round as you fired before. T-72 loading cycle is 6,5-15 secs. With a well trained gunner, the T-64/80 has the same rate of fire as any other manually loaded tank.

T-64/T-80 type autoloader (6EC-11, 6EC-15...) isnt slow at all. Elevating the gun doesnt affect accuracy at all. As I written previously, the stabilizator is to blame for it. For example me. I always play as russian. And dont forget our russian players!

Not the gun. The autoloader design. The ukrainian 125mm long rod rounds can penetrate more than 750mm KE RHA, which is 150+ mm more than the most advanced russian ones, but it uses a different autoloader. Unfortunately, russian tank business is full of corruption. In the early '90s, everyone knew that the T-80U was superior to the late T-72B, still, they abandoned the upgrading of T-80U, and tried to further develop the T-72. Why? The manufacturer of the T-72 was/is better in lobbying. Knowing this the fate of the Objekt 640 Chorniy Oryol and the new Objekt 195 is quite understandable. The problem is that they still forcing to upgrade the T-72, but there is nowhere to upgrade it. This tank reached its limits, and the latest versions are already obsolete, its inferior in all important aspects (firepower, protection, mobility). Ukraine continued the development of the T-80UD, and their most recent T-84 Oplot-M is now in the same league as the Abrams, the Challenger2 or the Leopard. This again proves the superiority of the T-80 over the T-72 (T90).

Although Im a big fan of soviet/russian tanks, I think even the latest T-90A/M is no match for an M1A2. The reasons: It still has the obsolete Kontakt-5 heavy ERA. It doesnt add any protection vs. the M829A3 rounds. Also, the ERA coverage is quite poor on the turret front, the Shtora takes up much room, this area is especially vulnerable. The second reason is that the T-90 cant use long rod penetrators, due to the autoloader design. The third reason is that the importance of gun launched ATGM is overestimated. It can penetrate 900-1000mm CE RHA, but it isnt enough against the M1A2 turret which is around 1350-1600mm against HEAT.